9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ever is greater" - Held that:- When the words used are "not exceeding a particular amount", it does not mean that the amount so specified becomes the minimum penalty to be imposed - Even otherwise, considering the nature of dispute and the stakes involved it is not appropriate for the department to have carried an appeal against the order of the original authority to the Commissioner (Appeals) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opped the proceedings. 3. Learned Deputy Commissioner (AR) reiterates the grounds of appeal and submits that the adjudicating authority ought to have imposed a minimum penalty of Rs. 5000/- and the Commissioner (Appeals) should have enhanced the penalty from Rs. 500/- to Rs.5,000/- 4.1. Section 112 of the Customs act read as under: Penalty for improper importation of goods, etc. Any person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able goods, other than prohibited goods, to a penalty 4[not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or five thousand rupees], whichever is the greater; (iii) in the case of goods in respect of which the value stated in the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage, in the declaration made under Section 77 (in either case hereafter in this section referred to as the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... penalty not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or five thousand rupees whichever is greater". The department claims that the above words imply that the penalty imposed should be a minimum of five thousand rupees. Such an interpretation is totally unwarranted as there is no stipulation of any minimum amount as penalty as can be illustrated by the following examples: (a) If, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
